CIN: Campbell spells it out for the IBC

Auto Insurance in the legislature

Campbell's comments on Bill 171.
She spells out the Insurance industry profits and how insurance victims are getting victimized by bad legislation.

Photo Canadian Insurance News

Link to the video: http://t.co/GMaEV5nRl7

All the while there are now over 10,000 appeals waiting to be heard

at the Social Security Tribunal.

The more people that speak out about this industry, the better. 

The better not only for Crash survivors, but for all Ontarian s.

Speak out about an Industry built on the injured victims of Insurance systems. 

Built with our money.

Admin

Canadian Insurance News

Queen’s Park Update: Auto insurance bills may have to wait

June 26, 2014 at 7:58 pm by Willie Handler

---

A surprise majority for the Liberals in the recent election is expected to set a different tone in Queen’s Park after almost 3 years of minority government.  A minority government is all about survival, there is no long-term planning. The Liberals could not focus on deficit reduction, job creation, pensions or stabilizing the auto insurance product without the confidence of having the support of the Legislature.

Despite campaigning under an activist agenda, the Liberals are now signalling that they are serious about deficit reduction. Deb Matthews has been appointed President/Chair of Treasury Board/Management Board which traditionally has been a responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. Treasury Board is not well known outside of government but it is a powerful central agency that manages the fiscal plan of the government including all government spending and approving labour agreements.  A very powerful body.

Charles Sousa continues as Minister of Finance and appears to still be responsible for the auto insurance file.  His Deputy, Steve Orsini has been promoted to Secretary of Cabinet which is head of the Ontario Public Service.  His appointment is intended to also signal that the Liberals are serious about deficit reduction.  He replaces Peter Wallace also preceded Orsini as Deputy Minister of Finance.

There has been some restructuring in the Ministry of Finance.  The Insurance and Cooperatives Policy Unit (which includes auto insurance policy) and the Deposit Taking Institutions Unit of the Industrial and Financial Services Branch will be reconstituted as the Financial Institutions Policy Branch. They will continue to be led by Alvaro del Castillo. Tthe Financial Institutions Policy Branch will join the Securities Reform Division (SRD) reporting to Assistant Deputy Minister Frank Allen who replaces Pat Deutscher. To better reflect its broader mandate the SRD will be renamed the Financial Services Policy Division.

Next week, new MPPs will return to Queen’s Park to elect a new Speaker of the Legislature (July 2), hear a new Speech from the Throne (July 3), then debate a re-introduced provincial budget on July 14. It is expected that shortly after that the Legislature will recess for the summer.  That might mean that the reintroduction of industry supported bills such as Bills 171 and 189 might have to wait until the fall.

 Source: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8201435313300764139#editor/target=post;postID=6637068326969657732

Next steps in auto insurance: What action will our MPPs take to increase access to justice for accident victims?

Tomorrow is Election Day in Ontario and many of us will be off to the polls to cast our votes.

On June 3, 2014, we saw the election debate between the three major party leaders. While a number of issues were addressed, including scandal, the deficit, and job creation, auto insurance reform was not one of them. It is unfortunate that the topic did not attract more attention from the candidates as the issue will affect most Ontarians.

While the candidates proposed changes to auto insurance in their policy platforms at the outset of their campaigns, it has not been a prevalent topic of discussion as we near the polls.

The Liberals promised a drop in average insurance rates by 15%, which has yet to be achieved. Earlier this year, they introduced Bill 171 that proposed amendments to the Dispute Resolution System (“DRS”), a crackdown on fraud, further regulation for the towing industry, and a reduced rate for pre-judgment interest. Due to the call for an election, Bill 171 was not passed.

As part of the NDP platform, Andrea Horwath, stated she would achieve a 15% insurance premium reduction within the first year of government and would “drive some changes in the auto insurance industry.” However, she failed to elaborate on exactly what the changes might include or explain how they would be achieved.

According to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, a 6% premium reduction has already been realized.

The Conservatives criticized Bill 171 when it was initially introduced and responded with their own plan for DRS reform. They propose to increase accountability from insurers and reduce fraud by further utilizing the Health Claims for Auto Insurance (HCAI) electronic billing system. Similar to their opposition, they also call for reduced premiums but have not stated how much of a discounted rate the public could expect or when it would take effect.

While the platforms have outlined each of the parties’ goals, the candidates have done little to explain how they will be obtained.

As an Ontarian and insurance consumer, I am interested to know what the candidates will do to ensure that premiums do not continue to increase, especially when accident benefits continue to be slashed.

As a personal injury lawyer and OTLA member, it is important to me that the elected government does not ignore this issue and continue to allow my clients to face systematic unfairness.

Will the candidates make efforts to eliminate the threshold or reduce the deductible? What action will they take to increase access to justice for accident victims? It appears these questions will remain unanswered as we head to the polls. However, the election is only the beginning, and I will continue to write to my MPPs and assist OTLA in raising public awareness to ensure these issues are given the consideration they deserve.

Contributed by Michael Giordano, an OTLA member and a lawyer practising with Sal Guzzo LL.B. Professional Corporation.

Source: http://otlablog.com/next-steps-in-auto-insurance/
 

FAIR takes aim at FSCO

The Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform  has taken aim at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario’s 2014 Draft Statement of Priorities, describing it as a "Christmas wish list" for insurance companies.

“Where is the protection talked about in this statement? Why are tens of thousands of Ontario’s accident victims lining up for hearings when they’ve been wrongfully denied the benefits they paid for in a time of need?” says Rhona DesRoches, chair of FAIR, in an open letter to Philip Howell, CEO and superintendent of financial services for FSCO. “Over and over the changes to our coverage read like a Christmas wish list for the Insurance Bureau of Canada.”

FAIR had criticized the Ontario government just prior to the election announcement, after it was bumped from its spot on the list of groups to speak on Bill 171. (See FAIR cries foul over Bill 171 hearings.) At the time, DesRoches criticized a list of “only eight presenters, none of whom speak to the issues of Ontario’s accident victims.”

This time around, Desroches and FAIR have chosen FSCO as their target for what they perceive as a built-in inequality in the insurance claim system.

“The reality of making an auto accident claim in Ontario versus the ‘open and transparent system that protects the public’ that is described on the FSCO website and in this draft statement are two totally different realities,” says DesRoches. Accident victims do not feel protected or that they are being assisted in a ‘fair and open system’ that is looking after their best interests. Half of those who make a claim are unable to access medical rehab and other needed benefits and yet ‘FSCO aims to improve the ways in which it regulates and delivers services to foster consumer protection in the financial services sectors.’”

 DesRoches asks Howell why FSCO hasn’t taken any action to protect vulnerable accident victims from predatory assessors.

“FAIR has asked this question many times – we’ve asked the Anti-Fraud Task Force, Justice Cunningham at the DRS review, and our legislators,” says DesRoches. “FSCO is aware that some of Ontario’s regulatory colleges are failing in their duty and yet you are quite willing to rely on this broken system of flawed medical assessments rather than fix this fundamental problem.”

When contacted by Insurance Business about the open letter, FSCO had this to say:

“As many of the concerns outlined in the FAIR letter relate to changes to legislation, we would like to clarify that any legislative or regulatory changes are led by the Ontario Government, not by FSCO. 

“FSCO is accountable to the Minister of Finance, and Section 11 of the FSCO Act requires that FSCO publish in the Ontario Gazette and deliver to the Minister of Finance by June 30 of each year a statement setting out FSCO’s proposed priorities and the reasons for adopting these priorities. As part of this process, FSCO is seeking public input before publishing its proposed priorities for the fiscal year.”

FSCO also stated that its role is to protect the public interest and promote public confidence in the sectors it regulates.

“Under the FSCO Act and the Insurance Act, our responsibilities specific to auto insurance include:
- overseeing how auto insurance is priced;
- approving the rules that companies can and cannot use to refuse to sell insurance to a consumer;
-approving risk classification systems, which insurers use to determine individual consumers’ rates;
- licensing those who sell insurance in Ontario; and
- reviewing complaints against insurance companies and those who work in the insurance industry.”

COMMENTS

• Devils Trumpet on 03/06/2014 4:34:28 PM
  If FSCO is the paper tiger Mr.Howell claims it to be,then it's obvious that the agency be restructured,it's clearly is not in the best interest of the public.Even the industry-financed FSCO ombudsman rarely,if ever sides with the claimant.With no public representation and input at FSCO,is it any wonder?
  This government has gone to great lengths to silence FAIR,being bumped at the last opportunity to speak on Bill 171 was another egregious attempt to silence accident victims.
  Rather than make the system more "fair and open"the new anti-fraud measures re-victimizes accident victims while increasing profits for the industry.The attack upon survivors will undoubtedly continue in earnest,accident victims will continue to push for insurance reform that benefits them as well as the industry.FSCO may be a paper tiger,the survivors are not.
  
• TammyK on 03/06/2014 6:16:55 PM
  So basically, FSCO, the government, and the insurers are playing a blame game. There isn't any accountability for not adhering to the contract aka, auto policy, we are forced to buy! Insurers get their money from the policy holders (possible victim). The politicians get their pockets lined from the IBC through"contributions" via membership money from the insurers. FSCO is "accountable" to the government by ensuring the insurers are kept in line.
  
  - overseeing how auto insurance is priced;
  - approving the rules that companies can and cannot use to refuse to sell insurance to a consumer;
  -approving risk classification systems, which insurers use to determine individual consumers’ rates;
  - licensing those who sell insurance in Ontario; and
  - reviewing complaints against insurance companies and those who work in the insurance industry.
  
  REVIEWING COMPLAINTS? WHAT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS? TRANSPARENCY?
  
  NO ONE in these parties is held liable or accountable for the abuse and traumatizing that the accident victims are submitted to!
  These are the same "parties" that are paid to ensure victims of MVA will have their recovery needs available!
• Concerned Citizen on 03/06/2014 8:36:18 PM
  "reviewing complaints against insurance companies and those who work in the insurance industry."
  
  FSCO is certainly not doing it's job in the above "responsibility". Ontario is turning a blind eye to the way Accident Victims are being treated, especially seriously injured victims. The Christmas Wish List mentioned in the letter is 100% correct. Shame on our Politicians and FSCO.
• Concerned Citizen on 03/06/2014 8:49:08 PM
  FAIR is "bang on" in the above letter.
  
  I agree with FSCO in that it is the Gov't making these changes that are hurting Accident Victims, but they are certainly not doing their job in regard to the last listed responsibility.
  "...reviewing complaints against insurance companies and those who work in the insurance industry."
• Griswald G on 04/06/2014 9:11:16 AM
  The insurance industry with their slash and burn mentality in the name of savings has created a system that just isn't working. This should be an election issue. If we injure someone we want the system to work for that person and not be punishing them for making a claim. The medical examinations Fair talks about should be accurate diagnosis of injuries and not used as a dishonest reason for not paying up. There shouldn't be good and bad insurance companies. They should all have to stand behind their contracts and if they don't they should be kicked out of the province and not allowed to sell useless policies to consumers. If the Financial Services commission doesn't know or can't figure out that it is their job to make sure that we are covered then they shouldn't hold themselves out as regulators. Bad job all way around for accident victims.
• Rick on 04/06/2014 12:24:56 PM
  No government has taken on the issue since no-fault came in - everything a patch job that benefits insurers. What we have now doesn't resemble what we started off with and just keeps getting worse each time. Most expensive premiums and worst coverage in Canada.
• Friendly Reader on 03/06/2014 9:03:47 AM
  Way to go FAIR! Someone has to stand up against the insurance companies that are abusing their powers. To be fair, not all the companies are the same, but the ones that are trying to get out of paying legitimate claims need to be held accountable.
• paul c. armstrong on 03/06/2014 10:55:41 AM
  Nothing appears 'Fair.' Legitimate claimants whose needs are unaddressed allegedly by insurers and fraudulent claims that get addressed. If fraud is the key to treat all claims, then the 'Government' not 'FISCO' has to do it. There is a 'way' but there needs to be a 'will.' Maybe Mr. Hudak has this issue as a priority in his quiver of arrows.

source: http://www.insurancebusiness.ca/news/fair-takes-aim-at-fsco-178130.aspx?p=1

Balance needed between interests of drivers, insurers

While the future of a bill meant to address pressing concerns in the auto insurance system is unknown, the issues persist, and drivers are still in need of cost-saving solutions, says Toronto personal injury lawyer Peter Cho.

The Liberal government’s Bill 171, the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, passed second reading in April, and proposed making several changes to the auto insurance dispute resolution system. The bill is now effectively dead as the legislature has dissolved for the June 12 election.

Cho, associate with Smitiuch Injury Law, said he’s glad to see Bill 171 go by the wayside, but as long as auto insurance rates remain an issue in Ontario, another version of the bill is likely to be presented in the near future.

The bill looked to name the Licence Appeal Tribunal as the new location for the dispute resolution section of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) – a move that would raise serious concerns for drivers, said Cho.

“A major concern with respect to this shift would be whether it would lead to further backlog and delay in having disputes resolved effectively. This has been a challenge facing the Ontario accident benefits regime for many years,” said Cho.

“A second concern, and equally significant, is that FSCO arbitrators, who have significant knowledge and experience in making decisions on accident benefits disputes, would be replaced with per diem arbitrators who do not possess the same level of expertise and knowledge of the Ontario accident benefits regime.

“At this stage, there are not enough facts about how the Licence Appeal Tribunal would operate, but my concern is how this change would impact Ontario drivers and specifically those currently involved in disputes with their insurers as they may be facing additional delays and potentially a new set of rules and procedures with the Licence Appeal Tribunal.”

The bill also proposed repealing sections of the Insurance Act that would stipulate that no person may bring a proceeding in any court with respect to a dispute over statutory accident benefits, “other than an appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal or an application for judicial review.” The impact of such a change “cannot be overstated,” said Cho.

“I anticipate that there would be great resistance and a strong response to this type of change from the legal community as well as from Ontario drivers as it restricts access to justice,” he said.

“By removing the right for someone to bring an accident benefits dispute into the court system, it denies the individual their inherent right to have their dispute heard before a local judge to decide an issue. This type of change confines an individual to a specific set of rules and procedures established by the Licence Appeal Tribunal and also eliminates the ability to proceed with punitive and exemplary damages where they may be appropriate.”
The amendment would “remove accountability for an insurer’s actions,” said Cho.

“Bill 171 would also impact access to justice due to the change in the calculation of pre-judgment interest,” he said. “The proposed change in the legislation would set an interest rate based on the Courts of Justice Act, resulting in a drop from 5 per cent to 1.3 per cent per annum. The current SABS rate is 1 per cent compounded monthly. As such, insurance companies will find little incentive to settle with an injured party at an earlier stage.”

Despite the uncertain future of Bill 171, Cho said the issues are worth discussing because they’re bound to resurface in the legislature.

“There needs to be a better dialogue between representatives of Ontario drivers and the insurance companies,” said Cho. “As it currently stands, there is an imbalance of power in the automobile insurance industry. The near introduction of Bill 171 and its sweeping changes without much public debate is evidence of this.”

source:  http://advocatedaily.com/2014/06/balance-needed-between-interests-of-drivers-insurers/

OTLA calls on provincial candidates to restore the basic rights of accident victims

On March 4, 2014, the Ontario Liberals tabled Bill 171, which proposed a number of amendments to the Insurance Act, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act and the Repair and Storage Liens Act. At the time of tabling Bill 171, Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform (FAIR) and the Ontario PC party criticized the bill for not dealing with claims disputes over insurers’ medical assessments

Bill 171 fell through with the fall of the Liberal government.

Since the election campaign has started, only the NDP appears to have voiced concerns about insurance issues as part of their election message. Ms. Andrea Horwath has locked horns with the Liberals over auto insurance rates. She has alleged that the Liberals have broken their promise to reduce drivers’ rates by 15 per cent. “People are paying too much for insurance,” she told reporters Tuesday at a campaign stop in Scarborough. Ms. Horwath has stated that she believes that there is money owing right now to drivers in Ontario for the changes that the government made in 2010. Insurance companies have cut payouts by billions of dollars over the past several years but motorists have seen little benefit by way of lower premiums.

The Liberals disagree with the assertions from the NDP and say they’ve made good on their pledge. According to MPP Steven Del Duca (Vaughan), in the 2013 budget, the Liberals promised to reduce rates by 15 per cent on average, with a time period to be prescribed in regulation. “In August 2013, we specified that we would meet the target within two years, with an 8-per-cent cut in the first year,” he said in a statement to the Star.

Regrettably, it appears that neither the Liberals, nor the PC party nor the NDP are expressing any concern about the reduced access to justice for injured people who under our existing insurance system either won’t commence litigation to recover compensation for their losses, or will receive no or substantially reduced compensation. Mr. Alan Shanoff, in an article in the Toronto Sun, on May 3, 2014, discussed the restriction of access to justice through the concepts of the threshold and statutory deductible. Mr. Shanoff refers to the deductible as absurd. In his opinion, having both a threshold and a deductible is redundant and only serves to harm accident victims and benefit insurance companies.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association has recommended that the threshold be repealed and the deductible be reduced. OTLA has sent out an Election Update to candidates this week. The Election Update explains current restricted Tort rights of victims of car accidents and the fact that lawyers are not even allowed to tell jurors about the deductible. OTLA Election Update calls on election candidates to restore the basic rights of auto accident victims in Ontario by repealing the threshold and lowering the deductible. It will be interesting to observe whether only the NDP continues to raise concern about insurance issues and whether any of the parties will use this election opportunity to move to restore basic rights of victims in Ontario and start worrying about how to treat innocent people fairly.

Contributed by Roelf Swart, an OTLA member and a lawyer practising with Elkin Injury Law in St Catharines, Ont.

Source: http://otlablog.com/otla-calls-on-provincial-candidates-to-restore-the-basic-rights-of-accident-victims/

Ontario election call leaves auto changes in limbo

    THE ONTARIO election call has left auto insurance reform legislation there in limbo — a turn of events that pleases critics of one of the bills while supporters are now clinging to the hope it will be revived no matter who runs Queen’s Park after the June 12 vote.
 
    “Everything that was announced in the budget will be set aside with the writ being dropped,” Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario Chris Floyd told Thompson’s. “Bill 171 will also not move any further.”
 
    Also affected is the Roadside Assistance Protection Act introduced last month that proposed new rules for the towing industry and storage providers.
 
    Mr. Floyd noted the IBAO has had a good working relationship with all parties.
 
    “We have been pleased with the work that was being done and expressed in Bill 171, as well as the work that had been done with the recommendations of the auto anti-fraud task force.”
 
    He said that if the Progressive Conservatives form the next government, the party has a grasp of the issues.
 
    “The PCs have a good understanding of the challenges facing the industry and we are confident we would be able to work with them should they be successful.”
 
    FAIR, the Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform, is relieved that the bill is being set aside.
 
    “This was a bill that our Liberal government was ramming through without adequate consultation or consideration for Ontario’s auto accident victims,” chair Rhona DesRoches said.
 
    “On April 30th this government allowed only two hours to consult with stakeholders on an issue that affects millions of Ontarians and represents billions of dollars in our economy.”
 
    The election was called after we went to press last week following a failed Liberal budget which covered considerable insurance industry ground. It touched on the proposed legislation in Bill 171 along with the 15% average rate reduction targeted for August 2015; the revamping of the dispute resolution system; changes to towing, vehicle storage, and collision repair practices; the mandated annual Automobile Insurance Transparency and Accountability Expert Report, and the government’s encouragement of industry to look into telematics as a way to further reduce rates.
 
    Earlier, at a hastily called hearing on the Ontario government’s insurance reform bill, insurance industry representatives pleaded with members of the standing committee on general government to work with their parties to pass the legislation.
 
    Arthur Lofsky, government relations consultant to the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, said the association strongly supports all aspects of Bill 171, the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act.
 
    “Consumers need this bill passed if there is going to be any chance of getting rates down responsibly,” he said.
 
    “Not passing this bill will make it nearly impossible. Attempts to delay or weaken this bill unnecessarily are not in the best interests of consumers and the IBAO will be vocal if games are played with this legislation.”
 
    Mr. Lofsky concentrated most of his comments on prejudgment interest, which Bill 171 reduces.
 
    This is the interest paid to claimants on ‘pain and suffering’ damages, calculated from the date a plaintiff commences an action to the date a judgment is rendered.
 
    “The current PJI was fixed in legislation at 5% in June 1990 when the prime rate was 13%,” he said.
 
    “All other forms of PJI in Ontario are set based on prevailing interest rates. Bill 171 aligns the prejudgment interest rate with the interest rate for special damages — economic losses — at 1.3%.
 
    “This measure alone will save millions of dollars and speed up dispute resolution without affecting a deserving victim’s benefits in any way.”
 
    The Insurance Bureau of Canada said at the hearing that attempts at reforming the auto insurance product inevitably lead to arguments that insurers will be enriched at the expense of consumers, which is something that Bill 171 doesn’t do.
 
    “Bill 171 is an attempt to appropriately reduce unnecessary cost where it is right to do so — with the ultimate objective of reducing premiums,” Barb Taylor, IBC Ontario region policy director, told the committee.
    The IBC urged the legislators to act quickly before an election call could leave the bill to languish until another session.
 
    “It needs it to be passed,” Ms. Taylor said. “It needs legislators to stop playing political games with auto insurance — and with this bill — and get down to the business of implementing measures that will allow regulations that will revitalize important aspects of the auto insurance system.”
 
    Meanwhile, defence and plaintiffs’ lawyers expressed concern about Bill 171’s proposed restriction on access to the courts.
 
    A representative from the Advocates’ Society told the Queen’s Park committee that both the Canadian Defence Lawyers Organization and the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association were concerned about Section 14 of the now-shelved bill, which would change the Insurance Act to stipulate that disputes over damage settlements will be arbitrated by bureaucrats with no recourse to the courts.
 
    “In the province of Ontario, there has never been a deprivation of the right to go to court to pursue one’s remedy against an insurer,” said Eric Grossman, an Advocates’ Society member and partner in Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan.
 
    Since enhanced no-fault benefits were introduced in 1990, 24 years ago, injured persons had the right to choose whether to go to court, or to an administrative tribunal to pursue their denied claims.
 
    Before then, going to court was their only remedy.
 
    “Even if every other provision in Bill 171 is supportable and proves to be beneficial to consumers in this province by way of lowered insurance rates, there is not one person who can stand before you and say that the removal of the right to choose to go to court will reduce premiums.
 
    “I am here to tell you that it will not.”
 
    He told the committee that this change to the law would cause two proceedings to happen instead of one.
 
    “One at the tribunal and the other in court, whereas now, most cases of this nature are not split, and you would have both cases dealt with at once in court. Two cases rather than one is twice as expensive.” 

Source: http://www.thompsonsnews.com/story.asp?story=1799

FAIR cries foul over Bill 171 hearings

Some of the heavy hitters in the Ontario insurance scene made the pilgrimage to Queen’s Park to present their arguments for the passing of Bill 171 – but one group who was bumped at the last minute is crying foul.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario each sent delegations  for hearings on Bill 171 – but one group, FAIR (Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform), fired off a press release to express its displeasure at having its time slot pulled at the last minute.

“A generous 15 minutes to speak to the committee on the issues that affect the nine million drivers in Ontario and then we just don't. Poof - it's gone,” said Rhona DesRoches, FAIR board chair. “Only eight presenters, none of whom speak to the issues of Ontario's accident victims.”

DesRoches explains that FAIR was told "late Monday afternoon" that there was a spot in the two hours that were allotted for only eight presenters on the changes contained in Bill 171 on Wednesday afternoon.

“With only 48 hours of notice we scrambled to make travel arrangements and a speech, galvanized our members to respond with their concerns – only to find out… that our appallingly short 15 minutes of presentation time had disappeared,” said DesRoches.

The Vice-President, Ontario of the IBC Ralph Palumbo, led a contingent of IBC representatives that included Barb Taylor, Ryan Stein and Lee Samis to present their case before the Standing Committee on Bill 171 last week. Others stating their case before the committee were Dr. Bob Haig, CEO of the Ontario Chiropractic Association; Eric K. Grossman of The Advocates’ Society; Larry Gold of the Fair Value Committee; Dorianne Sauve, CEO of the Ontario Physiotherapy Association; Craig Hirota of the Associated Canadian Car Rental Operators; Michael Mouritsen of the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario; and Arthur Lofsky and Debbie Thompson of the IBAO.

DesRoches continues that “it might be easier to think of those tens of thousands of people lined up at FSCO to have hearings as fakers and malingerers but the numbers don't lie, they are a reflection of a broken system and not a reflection of rampant fraud in the system.

 “It's 2003 all over again, as one government exits, they take a moment to put the boots to some very vulnerable people. In 2003 it was Ernie Eves with Ontario Regulation 237/13 slashing benefits on the eve of an election. And accident victims have been taking a beating ever since with promises of rate reductions that result in stripped coverage.”

DesRoches rhetorically asks what the shape of Ontario’s auto insurance will take with the passing of Bill 171.

“When does it end? When insurers finally get what they want, premium dollars and zero payments?” she asks. “We are only $3,500 away from zero in this attack on our public systems. We need to do something.”

COMMENTS

• TammyK on 09/05/2014 7:48:24 AM
  With the standing committee given the task of making decisions to help pass Bill 171 or defeat it, WE the PUBLIC, would like to have some comfort in knowing the decision was an INFORMED one. One, that takes in the effects this Bill 171 will have on millions of drivers. Thousands of survivors already trying to make a maximum recovery.
  
  Charter of Rights Chapter 15(1) states,
  
  “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”.
  Stop trading accident victims’ rights to fair hearings, and the benefits they need for maximum recovery, for insurer dollars.
  Accident victims see Bill 171, not as a fraud fighting measure but as a template for reducing benefits paid to injured drivers.
  
  Let's face it, allowing Ontario’s insurers to sell us insurance that only works half of the time and for half of those injured is WRONG!
  
  
• Rick on 08/05/2014 1:03:00 PM
  Accident victims and consumers overall should have had the time at hearings that affect so many in a negative way. The stripping of access to ordinary justice by our government for accident survivors is a direct reflection of what the IBC asked for in 2009 in the 5 year review. Closing out the views of the people that use the insurance we are all sold, indeed that we are legislated to buy, is unfair. But then unfair business practice is part of the industry model isn't it? 
  
  
  
  
  Source:  http://www.insurancebusiness.ca/news/fair-cries-foul-over-bill-171-hearings-177622.aspx?p=2
  
  

We need insurance reform

The sorry state of Ontario’s auto insurance should be a major election issue

There’s no shortage of issues for Ontario’s June 12 election: Out of control hydro prices, the sad state of the economy, pension reform, transit funding and, of course, all the Liberal scandals.

Once again, the issue of auto insurance reform is likely to be left at the curb with no party championing those injured in auto accidents.

It’s a pity as the state of Ontario’s auto insurance cries out for reforms to protect accident victims.

1. Since the reforms of 2010, approximately 80% of all accident victims have been slotted into a new minor injury category in which they are limited to a maximum of $3,500 (and in many cases, $2,200) in medical/rehabilitation benefits.

According to the Ontario Rehab Alliance, an association representing over 4,000 health care professionals, the minor injury category was designed to cover those with simple, uncomplicated whiplash-type injuries, but insurance company adjusters are placing many with joint dislocations and tears to tendons and ligaments into this category, resulting in denials of treatment.

2. Medical/rehabilitation benefits for serious, non-catastrophic injuries were reduced by over 50% in 2010, from $100,000 plus assessment costs to $50,000, including assessment costs.

3. No-fault income replacement benefits were set at $400 per week in 1996. There’s been no adjustment for inflation since. While policyholders can purchase optional coverage, few do. Even if optional coverage (up to $1,000 per week) is purchased, income replacement is capped at 70% of gross income.

4. Attendant care benefits for serious, non-catastrophic injuries were cut in half ($72,000 to $36,000) in 2010. Worse, as of Feb.1, 2014, attendant care payments to family members who provide care have been capped by the amount of income lost by the family member, regardless of the hours incurred.

5. Even with reduced benefits, denial rates and delays in treatment are at unacceptably high levels, meaning accident victims are not receiving the benefits for which they have paid.

6. According to data analyzed by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, insurance companies now spend about 50 cents on experts’ fees to assess accident victims for every dollar they spend on treatment. When we look at the approximately 50% of victims who are assessed, we find that insurers pay more for experts to assess than they do for treatment for these victims.

7. Redundant laws are in place to insulate or reduce exposure for insurance companies from negligence lawsuits arising out of auto insurance accidents.
8. In 2012, the latest year for which figures are available, Ontario’s car insurers collected $3.78 billion in accident benefits premiums but paid out only $1.67 billion in claims and adjustment expenses.

These numbers come from the General Insurance Statistical Agency, the non-profit agency that tracks information on behalf of provincial insurance regulators. That means insurers have a gross profit margin of 56% on accident benefits coverage, not including the investment income earned on prepaid premiums. That’s not surprising since they are paying out a maximum of $3,500 in accident benefits for most injured in auto accidents.

We know what the Liberal party has in mind for auto insurance. They passed the 2010 cuts and introduced regulations to cut attendant care benefits to family members earlier this year. They introduced Bill 171, which would eliminate the right to pursue accident benefits claims in the courts, eliminate the right to pursue punitive damages in an accident benefits claim, provide an incentive for insurance companies to delay settlements and payments to those injured in motor vehicle accidents, and remove the right of arbitrators to penalize insurers who act unreasonably in withholding or delaying benefits.

We don’t know what Conservative leader Tim Hudak or NDP leader Andrea Horwath might do on auto insurance reform if elected.

One thing is certain. The current system can’t get much worse for accident victims.

Victims need timely, adequate accident benefits even more than they need premium cuts.

Source: By Alan Shanoff ,Toronto Sun  

First posted: Saturday, May 10, 2014 06:33 PM EDT 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/09/we-need-insurance-reform

Fair Submission on Bill 171 April 30 2014

Why is there no effort on the part of our government to fix this dishonest insurance system that at best can be described as run by insurance companies who are incompetent at handling the claims of their own customers and at worst as a dysfunctional corrupt system that is harming vulnerable injured Ontarians. Bill 171 further entrenches the existing abuses and then makes it more attractive to insurers to increase their rate of denials by rewarding them financially for doing so. By reducing the prejudgement interest insurers owe on payments to MVA victims that they failed to make in the first place, it is the insurers who will benefit.  Bill 171 rewards those unscrupulous or incompetent insurers.

How does that fit in with an elected official’s duty to protect the best interests of Ontarians?

FAIR Submission on Bill 171 April 30 2014

BILL 171 - CHRISTMAS COMES EARLY FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT

Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform
579A Lakeshore Rd. E, P.O. Box 39522
Mississauga, ON, L5G 4S6
http://www.fairassociation.ca/
April 16 2014

MEDIA RELEASE

BILL 171 - CHRISTMAS COMES EARLY FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT

Changes to auto insurance legislation in Bill 171 are beginning to get the discussion and attention in the legislature that Ontario's MVA victims deserve after years of being maligned and labelled as 'fraudsters' by their insurance companies.

MPPs are voicing their concerns about their constituents who are affected by these changes and the poor demonstration of the current government's ability to put the interests of Ontario citizens above the interests of big business auto insurers in Ontario.

Bill 171 is more than just a money grab from Ontario's already wealthy insurers to reduce payouts by making it more difficult to make a claim or to hold insurers accountable. 171 seeks to undermine access to justice and fails to address the dysfunctional insurance system.

When insurers are about to get a discount on the interest rate they have to pay when they wrongfully deny or mishandle legitimate claims (all while downloading the costs of MVA victims' care to the public purse) we know that the war isn't about fraud, it's about delaying claims and denying injuries to make
money on the backs of the disabled.

Too many MVA victims are unfairly punished by their insurance company's delay and deny system of claims handling practices which includes the use of poor quality, sometimes unqualified and often biased/partisan medical examination reports. We note that this issue was not discussed on April 8th - the quality of the medical examinations/reports and the lack of regulation and standards continues to be avoided. The actions of a small group of medico-legal assessors are at the core of too many of the cases that end up in litigation. This is what led to the DRS Review in the first place and now Bill 171.

We know that changes to legislation that benefit only insurers will not fix the problem or change the fact that Ontario's accident victims are stuck in a broken system that no longer serves them. Accident victims are being starved out by their insurers and are unable to access medical or rehabilitation treatments in
record numbers. Cases continue to be heard and benefits continue to be decided upon flawed and unregulated medical opinions of pro-insurer assessors whose only allegiance is the insurer that pays them. We need to change that.

Access to justice for Ontario’s accident victims shouldn’t be compromised to fit an industry’s need for higher profits or as a solution to control the claims of those who are legitimately injured and wrongfully denied what they paid for. And removing interest penalties for insurers for claims mishandling is an incentive to bad behaviour and guarantees the use of these bogus medical reports in the future. The failure to regulate for-hire medical opinion assessors and address the concerns in respect to their qualification, their medical reports and subsequent testimony in court will make certain that the system will favour insurers who pay for these reports and guarantees that our insurance system remains dysfunctional going forward.

Ensuring that Ontario has a working insurance system that provides good coverage and an honest system of justice for accident victims is part of the bargain and the responsibility of the government. There is also a responsibility that accident victims are not harmed by the process itself by way of the lack
of regulations and the harmful practices of some of Ontario’s medico-legal assessors during the course of a claim. We look forward to that issue becoming part of the debate.

FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform

For more information contact Rhona DesRoches at: fairautoinsurance@gmail.com



Here’s what some of Ontario’s MPPs had to say about Bill 171 and the
circumstances that MVA victims face:

FIGHTING FRAUD AND REDUCING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES ACT, 2014 /
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2014-04-
08&Parl=40&Sess=2&locale=en#P905_216221

“A more accurate title might be the “Christmas comes early for the insurance companies act.” This is an act in which the government is proposing to hand out another gift to huge insurance companies, at the expense of all auto insurance policyholders and accident victims.”

“It looks like it’s going to be a lot more money going back into the insurance industry.”

“Payment delayed is payment denied. Many people have low incomes and are struggling to get by; when a company says to them, “We are just going to sweat you out and wait you out,” many will be compelled to settle for a lower dollar amount because they can’t afford to wait. They need the money to get on with their lives.”

“The reduction in the interest rate that is meant to give insurance companies an incentive to settle and make payment only serves the interest of insurance companies, only serves to undermine policyholders, only serves to undermine justice in this province. Speaker, this part of the bill—and there are other problems—is an unconscionable change.”

“Let’s be serious here: This bill is nothing more than the Liberal government, without any consultation with the victims of automobile accidents and without any consideration for the victims of automobile accidents, handing yet another gift to the big insurance companies. You know what, Speaker? It’s a gift
from the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals that comes at the expense of all of us who drive and buy car insurance, the policyholders; and all of us who will ever be in an accident that wasn’t our fault, the innocent accident victims.”


“This government is proposing to wipe out recourse to an independent judicial system that safeguards the fundamental rights of citizens, rights we have all come to expect in this great nation we call Canada, and to replace the courts with a tribunal. What happens if you’re injured, you can’t work, and the
insurance company refuses to pay your income replacement? You can’t sue. It’s false to suggest that this will provide cost savings to the insurance industry and reduce insurance premiums.”



“There are 22 pages and I still haven’t found anything on fighting fraud. I just find incentives for insurance companies to make more money and nothing at all about reduction for the payers of this province who are mandated to have auto insurance, which is a good thing, we know. But we would hope that people would be able to claim the benefits when they need this service the most.”


“It will cost us all more in the long run, and it will put more money into the fur-lined silk pockets of the insurance companies. Don’t be fooled. Don’t be fooled again by this half-baked scam. Don’t be fooled by what’s on the table. Yes, get it to committee, but let’s correct it. It has a lot of faults, a lot of difficulties,
and it needs great improvement. ”


“These changes will make it even harder for victims, as many will not be able to afford it and will just give up the fight. And what do these changes have to do with fighting fraud? Absolutely nothing. All they do is make it easier for insurance companies to wrongfully deny benefits and delay settlements.”

Discriminating against injured?

Provisions of Liberals’ Bill 171 may be good for lawyers, but won’t help accident victims

“What kind of government creates laws that discriminate against injured and disabled citizens by denying them the same access to justice that every other citizen enjoys in a democratic society?”

That question was recently posed by FAIR (Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform) in an open letter to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne concerning Bill 171 — the so-called, Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014.

It’s a valid question that deserves an honest answer. Here’s the background.

Under current law people injured in motor vehicle accidents who wish to dispute their insurance company’s denial of no-fault accident benefits have the right to mediate the dispute.

Failing resolution by mediation they may elect to contest the denial in either an arbitration proceeding or a court action.

But the Ontario Liberal government’s Bill 171 would remove the right to pursue court action, forcing all accident benefits disputes to be determined solely by arbitrators.

Why should we care? There are several good reasons.

Courts have the power to award punitive damages.

They rarely exercise that power, but it is there and insurers have been slapped with punitive damage awards on occasion.

Arbitrators don’t have that power.

In some cases, an injured person may have the right to sue the other driver for negligence in a tort lawsuit.

This is in addition to making a claim for no-fault accident benefits.

Currently, injured people can pursue negligence claims and disputed accident benefit claims in the same court action.

However, by forcing all injured people to pursue accident benefit claims only via arbitration, Bill 171 will force some accident victims to pursue two separate, costly legal actions, one in court, the other via arbitration.

That may be good for lawyers but it won’t help accident victims.

As Progressive Conservative MPP Jeff Yurek (Elgin-Middlesex-London) recently told the Legislature, “(T)his bill proposes that instead of dealing with a dispute with both the tort and no-fault components, people now have to pursue a dispute on two separate fronts. That means two separate files, two separate forums of pursuing the dispute and two separate decisions to be made with respect to the dispute. How can this possibly be more cost-effective and efficient than the current system?”

There have been many court decisions that favour accident victims.

These wide-ranging rulings include the assessment of catastrophic impairment — victims assessed as catastrophically impaired are entitled to greatly enhanced accident benefits — so as to promote fairness to accident victims.

It is likely the Ontario government will be introducing amendments to the catastrophic impairment definition in the future.

But under Bill 171, courts will not have any say in the interpretation of the new definition.

That does not bode well for accident victims.

I expect the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association to criticize this removal of the right to seek recourse to the courts.

They certainly do, by correctly pointing out this proposed law has nothing to do with fighting fraud, “but everything to do with making it easier for insurance companies to wrongfully deny benefits, delay settlements and make it harder for you to collect what you are rightfully owed.” Surprisingly, even Canadian Defence Lawyers, a national organization representing the interests of civil defence lawyers, says that taking away the right to sue in respect of accident benefits “will reduce rather than enhance opportunities to access justice” and will “(r)emove the inherent fairness of allowing a local judge to decide issues in dispute”.

Removal of a person’s rights to seek recourse to the courts should not be undertaken without ample justification.

Forcing the injured and disabled to forego all court action and pursue their accident benefits claims via arbitration is just another way our government is running roughshod over the rights of motor vehicle accident victims. 

Source: By Alan Shanoff ,Toronto Sun First posted: Saturday, March 29, 2014 06:34 PM EDT

FAIR treatment of MVA victims and Bill 171

Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform

579A Lakeshore Rd. E, P.O. Box 39522

Mississauga, ON, L5G 4S6

http://www.fairassociation.ca/

March 20, 2014

OPEN LETTER

Sent by email to Premier Wynne, Charles Sousa and Deb Matthews

CC to Ontario's MPPs and the Media

On March 17, 2014 Ontario’s legislature had the second reading of Bill 171 - Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014.

FAIR believes that Bill 171 is being rushed through by our government to increase insurer profits.

There are clearly issues that both the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives feel are worthy of further consultations before passing 171 into law. It is only the Liberal party who felt that “this bill, if passed, is a practical step in helping us curb the price of auto insurance.” As if it doesn't matter what we get for the money or that right now, only half of all accident victims are getting the benefits they've paid for isn't a big issue.

Accident victims see Bill 171, not as a fraud fighting measure but as a template for reducing benefits paid to injured drivers by way of legislation geared toward enhancing insurer profits and marginalizing the rights of Ontario's disabled and injured citizens.

What kind of government creates laws that discriminate against injured and disabled citizens by denying them the same access to justice that every other citizen enjoys in a democratic society? Why remove the disincentives for insurers who delay and deny legitimate claims by decreasing prejudgment interest rates and throwing away ‘special awards’ for claimants who have been unfairly abused at the hands of their insurer?  It’s like declaring war on vulnerable MVA victims and it has nothing to do with fighting fraud.

Not a word from the Liberals about the core reason for the rate of insurer denials that created the backlog in our courts systems in the first place. Bill 171 will leave us with a dishonest system based on too often flawed and biased medico-legal opinion reports that are used to deflate and deny legitimate claims – but it will be faster. Not better, not honest, not helpful and certainly not fair or just.

What kind of government commission studies and panels that continue to acknowledge the issue of the quality of the medical examinations that accident victims are subjected to but still doesn't act to protect the best interests of the public? One that is determined to keep the self-regulation for medical practitioners in place despite that it is causing so much harm to its most vulnerable citizens?

The Anti-Fraud Task Force acknowledged the problem with IME/IE reports and expert evidence and chose to do nothing.  And Justice Cunningham spent some time on the subject in the DRS Review Report and again, there are no meaningful recommendations to fix this harmful process that is at the core of many of the cases that are in dispute. The recommended non-payment for a court appearance is hardly more than a slap on the wrist.  Both of these panels have recommended that the system and the accident victims continue to rely on Ontario’s regulatory colleges for oversight in respect to the quality of medical examinations and reports. A system they acknowledge isn’t working and that consumers and patients have issues with. Doing nothing about this harmful problem is an insult to every accident victim that has had to attend these IMEs and to every respectable assessor who does try and do a decent job.

 If there were to be an end to the unqualified or bogus IME/IE, it would be an end to the high volume of cases in dispute and an end to much of the suffering and psychological harm done to victims by these rogue assessors. Does this government have something against the fair treatment of accident victims with the use of quality evidence in court?

It can only be seen as a willful decision to put on the blinders to this harmful practice of abuse by some of Ontario’s insurers and their assessors.  It’s dangerous out there for the cognitively impaired or highly vulnerable accident victim when colleges such as CPSO have a long and dark history of hiding facts and misleading the public to protect their members. Both the Anti- Fraud and the DRS panel had information in front of them, words spoken by other judges and arbitrators on the harm caused by these partisan assessors and about the lack of transparency at Ontario’s colleges.

CPSO sends third party assessors for confidential remedial cautions when they abuse accident victims and when these same vulnerable people appeal these secretive and  dismissive decisions, HPARB anonomizes the practitioners name so that no matter what – accident victims will never know about prior abuse, bias or poor report writing skills or that unauthorized rubber stamped reports are being used.

We see no interest in real regulation when it comes to Ontario’s insurer assessment mills and their shoddy and biased medical reports with accusations of symptom exaggeration. In fact we see the opposite. We see recommendations by the Anti-Fraud Task Force Panel to fine injured claimants $500 if they fail to submit to often sketchy insurer assessments. Assessments that everyone in the industry and at FSCO knows are questionable, assessments without real oversight that everyone, except the general public and vulnerable accident victims, knows about.

 We see the DRS Panel making recommendations to strip injured claimants of the right to take their cases to court. Instead of punishing rogue insurer assessors with fines or fraud charges – we see ‘special awards’ being eliminated and the power of FSCO Arbitrators to refer insurer misconduct to the Market Conduct Branch removed. No more remedies for wrongful claims handling practices and all of these measures hurt MVA victims and reward insurers for abusive conduct and delays.

Please stop trading accident victims’ rights to fair hearings, and the benefits they need for recovery, for insurer dollars. 

Please fix the quality of the medico legal reports that are used to decide whether an accident victim is entitled to rehabilitation and benefits and in the bargain you’ll get a fair court system that isn't clogged with legitimate accident victims who have wrongfully been denied benefits. Please recognize that when the Colleges don’t do their job and aren't transparent to the public so their members not held accountable - and then the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board helps them to mislead the public - it causes serious harm. Please fix that by making sure the Colleges really are acting in the best interests of the public they are charged with protecting. Please don’t make it easier for some unscrupulous insurers to delay claims so they can make more money by paying a lesser interest – it creates an incentive to deny claims.

Please stop capitulating to Ontario’s insurers and discriminating against those whose insurers have failed to stand behind their contracts by taking away their right to have their case heard. Stop letting assessors harm accident victims and start making regulation and enforcement work.

Please stop taking action that has made Ontario’s accident victims third class citizens and in the bargain allowed Ontario’s insurers to walk away from their responsibilities by downloading these costs to the taxpayer.

Sincerely yours,

Rhona DesRoches
FAIR, Board Chair

http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FAIR-submission-to-2014-Pre-Budget-Consultations-Jan-23-2014.pdf

http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FAIR-letter-to-the-DRS-Panel-January-15-2014.pdf

Bill 171 Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act

Subject: Bill 171 Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act

To: Kathleen Wynne <kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org>, Charles Sousa <csousa.mpp@liberal.ola.org>, Andrea Horwath <ahorwath-co@ndp.on.ca>, "jsingh-qp@ndp.on.ca"

Open Letter:

I sent an email to several Politicians after the announcement of the proposed 15% insurance rate drop stating that I felt it was a waste of time because even if it came to fruition, the Insurance Companies would get their money somewhere else. Since then it is becoming quite obvious that the Insurance Companies are laughing all the way to the bank. The proof of this is in Bill 171 “Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act” and the recent changes by the Liberal Party to basically overturn a court ruling that allowed family members to be paid for looking after seriously injured accident victims (without any consultation). Add the changes made in 2010 and in my opinion the Liberal Party has turned a blind eye to some of the most vulnerable people in this Province. I mentioned in my email that I believed both Ms. Wynne and Ms. Horwath are people of integrity, but now I'm not so sure.
The Insurance Companies are using the smoke screen of "fraud" to further attack seriously injured victims, and all the Parties are playing right along. I realize there is fraud in the system, but it is getting blown "way" out of proportion. Accident victims are being labelled a fraud until proven innocent and with Bill 171, they will have fewer resources to fight this injustice. Insurance Companies have used the same angle with the Conservative Party after they brought about Bill 59 (which the insurance companies lobbied for) called “The Ontario Auto Insurance Rate Stability Act”. Both of these acts sound nice and fuzzy, but neither is nor will be of any benefit to the accident victim. They were designed to increase profits for the Insurance Companies under the cloud of a lie.
Somehow the biggest fraud never gets “seriously” put on the table and that would be the for-hire Independent Medical Examination (IME) Doctors. They treat accident victims with contempt or worse and deny or delay legitimate claims and benefits. Some Lawyers refer to them as “A Necessary Evil”.  I don’t understand why the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) doesn’t form a class action lawsuit against the Insurance Companies, Rogue Doctors, and anyone else responsible for the way accident victims are being treated. I’m sure many “good” Doctors and Health Professionals would also agree. Along with the above mistreatment, victims are being followed, photographed, and videotaped at home, in public, during therapy, and in hospital hallways after surgeries. Does this sound like a system that is trying to help people recover? In my opinion, this is a Human Rights abuse story.
Politicians, Health Professionals,and the OTLA should also be doing more to prevent new bills from becoming retroactive. Many cases are dragged out for more than 10 years and with all these changes, it’s like trying to build a case on sand.
If our leaders really want to save money, allot of pain, and get rid of the log jam of wrongfully denied claims, they should shine a light on the IME process and then kick all those “Non-Hippocratic Oath” doctor butts to the curb. It seems almost everyone in this system is making money off the backs of accident victims.
I watched some of the Ontario Legislator Session from Monday March 17. They were talking about bill 171 to an almost empty room. Most of what was being discussed was of minor importance; it was basically regurgitating the "fraud" story or “Honourable” Members trying to score points with the Insurance Companies. Mr. Jeff Yurek began an hour long speech by stating he is supporting the bill and then went on to talk about all that was wrong with it. I would suggest to Mr. Yurek that if this bill has allot of problems, he should “not” be supporting it. I do give him credit for at least mentioning the IME problem, “…We also want to establish a true, independent, peer-reviewed, medical assessment system. We want standardized assessment procedures that require multiple assessments being performed by medical professionals...”.  The word “true” stuck out to me. A good starting point would be to put a cap on the amount of times victims can be sent to IMEs. The Insurance Companies send them at will (whenever it benefits them) and many times it’s hundreds of miles away adding more expense and stress on the victims and their families.
From what I saw, the only people in the above session that came across as caring and knowledgeable about what is happening to accident victims were Mr. Jagmeet Singh and Ms. Catherine Fife and for that I would like to thank them. I wish they were in my riding.
I would like to finish with a quote from Ms. Fife on that day in the Legislator:
“…None of these changes has anything to do with fighting fraud. Everybody agrees that fraud is an issue, but these proposals in this legislation do not address the issue of fraud. But it does have everything to do with making it easier for insurance companies to wrongfully deny benefits, delay settlements and make it harder for you to collect what you are rightfully owed...”.


I CC this email to a few Journalists/Programs that I respect in the hope that they will further look into what is really going on in Ontario after a person(s) becomes injured in a car accident, especially seriously injured people.

Thank you for your time,
X

Source: http://www.fairassociation.ca/

ORDERS OF THE DAY Little Benefit for Victims

Yesterday Bill 171 was discussed in the legislature. Below is a portion of what was said
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=2014-03-17&detailPage=/house-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/17-MAR-2014_L112.htm#P478_102890

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hansard Mar. 17
Singh:

I think this issue was put very well by Alan Shanoff on March 15, 2014, in an article written for the Toronto Sun entitled "Little Benefit for Victims." He summarizes his response to Bill 171, Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act.

Now, I challenge the Liberal government, I challenge the members on the other side, to show me how this bill, particularly the two components I talked about-how will changing the dispute resolution system from the FSCO arbitrators to the Licence Appeal Tribunal reduce fraud? It won't. I dare you to show me how it will. You can't show that. So your title that says "Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act" in that regard is false. I challenge you to show me how reducing the interest rates charged to encourage insurance companies to settle quicker-reducing them from 5% to 1.3%-reduces fraud in any way. I challenge you to show me how that reduces fraud. You won't be able to show me that. Again, the title "Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act" is false in those two areas, and those are the two biggest components of this bill.

Now, the article written by Mr. Shanoff was quite to the point, and I love the way he summarized this issue. In his final summary of this issue of Bill 171, he writes, "I can see where reduction of interest rates, removal of special awards and shunting cases away from experienced, independent arbitrators would benefit insurance companies.

"But where is the benefit to drivers and accident victims?" I agree wholeheartedly.

later Singh:

Reading from Mr. Shanoff's article again, if we're really serious about protecting drivers, Mr. Shanoff writes, "Another real way to protect drivers is to provide arbitrators with the power to penalize insurers that act unreasonably in withholding or delaying penalties." If arbitrators had a tool of that sort, they could use this to send a message to penalize insurers if they're acting unreasonably. This power exists right now.

Mr. Shanoff writes: "Actually, arbitrators hearing accident benefit cases currently have that power under the Insurance Act.

"They can award a lump sum of up to 50% of the amount withheld or delayed, along with interest, at the rate of 2% compounded monthly."

I ask the government again to explain-Bill 171 eliminates this power, gets rid of this ability for the arbitrator to penalize an insurer if they're withholding a sum or a settlement-how getting rid of this power, getting rid of this ability to penalize the insurers for acting inappropriately, for acting unreasonably, in any way reduces fraud. How does getting rid of this power in any way protect consumers?

1750

Actually, I'm going to quote from the article by Alan Shanoff. Now, I'm quoting the Toronto Sun, so you never really know what you're going to end up in a day-but Alan actually rightly points out, and he takes exception to, the haste. He says, "But what is most objectionable about Bill 171 is the haste with which it has been introduced-just two weeks following release of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Dispute Resolution System Review by J. Douglas Cunningham, a former Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice"-very well qualified.

"That must be some sort of speed record.

"But with this haste there has been no opportunity for input by stakeholders."

Once again, and this seems to be a trend that we have seen in this House, a piece of legislation comes to the floor and there are gaps in that legislation. The promise or the offer is put out, "Well, let's get this to committee and fix it." This is something that I do not understand. Why don't they just bring the legislation, in its full entirety, to the floor of the House so that we could actually have a productive conversation and a debate about Bill 171, in this instance?

source: http://www.fairassociation.ca/